[Discussion] New PRV utilities

[maisie]

@Linnovations

Could a similar “ticket” system be implemented to prevent spam?

The ticket represents your ownership of the earn pools. When you request a withdrawal, the ticket will be burnt as a proof for withdrawal. You need to wait for the blockchain to mint another ticket as a replacement. And this can not be applied to prevent spam.

@Linnovations

I’d like to know how these yields are calculated and are they being propped up by the Incognito treasury?

The APY depends on the pool size and the fee (the rewards for liquidity providers). The smaller the pool size is, the more dominant you are. So liquidity you have provided would be more usable, which increases the rewards you get. That’s how yield rates are calculated

[nickvasilich]

hey @duc, I’m pleased to pass through the written breakdown you did for me and others. This is precisely useful input that helps to understand the trade-off.
thanks

[xlsm142857]

I think this is calculated based on the trading volume and the amount of funds that provide liquidity

[duc]

Hey everyone, we’re appreciated your thoughtful conversation here about the proposed PRV utilities, especially the new network fee. Also, thank you @abduraman for creating the survey. As mentioned earlier, more participants who hold PRV will be able to anonymously vote on such an important decision once we deliver the privacy DAO. (ETA: Dec 30, more details of how it works will be published on another topic).

According to the survey result and all shared ideas on the topic, we will be proceeding to update the network fee to 0.1 PRV (95% burned and 5% rewarded network validators). All needed deployment for the network, app, wallet extension, and website is estimated to be done today (Dec 21).

[PilevinA]

Good luck!!! :ням:

[fredlee]

@abduraman

What I understand from the table is that I shouldn’t be validator for Shard 7

Yes, keep restaking until you get a better shard!

@duc

It depends on how the community and network validators consensus on the proposal. At the team’s end, this is not a big update and we can get things ready this week.

14 days from the start of discussion to implementation, with only 26 voters. That moved fast!

@maisie

there will be an airdrop of 0.3 PRV which is equal to the payment of 3 transactions’ network fees

Where do the funds for the airdrops come from? Is the airdrop in place already, or did we jump the gun and alienate new users by raising the TX fee too fast?

[Up2UrHeadlights]

I came here to express my belief that this was implemented in the worst possible way.

The fee increase was done after 2 weeks of discussion and a 10 day poll that only asked to decide between 2 options and very low number of voters anyways. Where’s the option to not raise fees at all, or raise by just a little bit, let’s say 10X. It’s a huge bias, and nothing close to democracy or decentralization or DAO.

The issue is that the fee was increased 1,000,000%, from 0.0000001 PRV to 0.1 PRV, virtually overnight.

A better way would be to advertise the discussion on the roadmap, the e-mails the team sends out, on the front page of the website, and on reddit and other social media. Then allow some time for discussion, say a couple of months.

Then implement a timeline that slowly raises the fees, say 10X a month, until it hits the rate it needs to be.

I feel like I’ve been smacked over the face with this drastic fee change, with very little communication from the team, and I’ve lost a lot of trust in the transparency of heavy handed things the team might implement in the future.

[Jared]

I understand what you’re saying, however, the new transaction fee is only ~0.02¢ per TX.

Per the updated roadmap, a pDAO is being developed to make user input/voting much more streamlined in the near future.

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@Jared

I understand what you’re saying, however, the new transaction fee is only ~0.02¢ per TX.

It’s not the amount of the fees that concerns me. 1,000,000% increase is a huge number. It’s the way it was implemented, with little discussion and a straw poll.

@Jared

Per the updated roadmap, a pDAO is being developed to make user input/voting much more streamlined in the near future.

You can do better today, the promise of pDAO does nothing for me today.

[PilevinA]

@Up2UrHeadlights

Меня волнует не сумма гонорара. Увеличение на 1 000 000% — это огромная цифра. Именно так это было реализовано, с небольшим обсуждением и соломенным опросом.

the network has been operating for 3 or 4 years and I think such an increase in fees is acceptable…this is spam protection

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@PilevinA

the network has been operating for 3 or 4 years and I think such an increase in fees is acceptable…this is spam protection

It’s going to cause regular legit transactions to fall off as well. As the fees were basically dust I would roll my earnings into provide at every possible chance and do multiple swap txns a day. Now the fees have to be factored in and I can see myself waiting to transact on the network about once a month so my earnings can offset the fees. Also, what happens when the price of PRV goes up? The $0.02 now will be much more significant then.

[Jared]

@Up2UrHeadlights

The $0.02 now will be much more significant then.

This was already addressed. The pDAO can alter the price as needed.

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@PilevinA

I don’t think the dollar is stable China and Russia are abandoning it… Its price is low

You must live in a Country with propaganda. The dollar is stronger against the yuan and ruble right now. Russian economy is in shambles due to it’s war and China is facing a debt/covid crisis. 8% inflation in America is peanuts comparatively.

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@Jared

This was already addressed. The pDAO can alter the price as needed.

So why didn’t the team wait until the pDAO to implement a change?

Also, it’s gonna be a bit of a pain to have to vote for a fee change every time the price of PRV changes.

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@duc

Let’s only talk about storage here

I really fail to see how raising the fee is going to have a meaningful impact on storage. If anything, it’ll be a temporary bandaid type mitigation at best. The hopes are that the network will grow over time, not be slowed down. This whole fee increase proposal is to slow down transactions? That just make no sense. The team has even admitted that they are just guessing that spam is a problem, as the blockchain is a privacy one and they have no idea what the transactions are for anyways. The real solution to the data storage problem for validators is to implement pruning. All of the major blockchains have implemented this already. In fact, I suggested this as a feature in September, and was ignored.

[Jared]

@Up2UrHeadlights

The real solution to the data storage problem for validators is to implement pruning. All of the major blockchains have implemented this already. In fact, I suggested this as a feature in September, and was ignored.

Pruning is already active:

State pruning

In this topic, we are presenting an improvement mode for Incognito stateDB that would help Incognito fullnode saves at least 60% data storage. What is state pruning? Incognito node uses stateDB for storing state data such as pDEX, tokens, and transactions. And each time one leaf node changes value. New state trie will need to build a new path and new leaf node for the changed value. Therefore, with the purpose of decreasing the storage of stateDB, we will try to remove old paths and old nodes. …

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@Jared

Pruning is already active:

That is for a fullnode. It does nothing for us validators.

[Jared]

@Up2UrHeadlights

That is for a fullnode. It does nothing for us validators.

Have you bootstrapped your node before? If so, then you are benefiting from state pruning.

[Up2UrHeadlights]

@Jared

Have you bootstrapped your node before? If so, then you are benefiting from state pruning.

I have bootstrapped, but I still have to store all the beacon and shard data going back to the beginning? Am I missing something?

Perhaps the pruning I am talking about is different from what has been implemented. In bitcoin, originally the wallet application had to download the entire blockchain to be used. They implemented a change where you could prune the old data from your disk, and only had to store the most recent relevant data. I have mine set to 2GB, so my bitcoin wallet only ever has 2GB of the most recent data stored. Why can’t validators do this, we are in fact, only validating new transactions as them come in, correct?

[Linnovations]

@duc

we will be proceeding to update the network fee to 0.1 PRV (95% burned and 5% rewarded network validators).

Hey @duc, not sure if you discuss my idea with the core team, but instead of burning 95% of the new fee, I suggested we put a portion (say 50%) of fee into a DAO Treasury Wallet rather than be burnt.

Was this idea discussed?
Could this idea be put to a community vote like what @abduraman did?